MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
STATE
UN rVERSITY,
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Biology
SB 73
FROM:
William A. Covino
Provost and Vice IrisiIeiit for Academic Affairs
FRESNO
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I fully understand that the statistical standard chosen for student ratings is
provisional, and may require further adjustment once we have obtained a
sufficient amount of comparison data. However, the mean you have selected
seems a reasonable initial benchmark.
I also want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's stated
beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective, and
considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Andrew Hoff, Interim Dean, College of Science and Mathematics
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
Administrative Center
Henry Madden library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S ML54
Fresno
, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
FIX 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Biology Policy on Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness
Fall 2011 (APPROVED 9/30/11)
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness (along with
supplementary sections APM 322a-f). The Department of Biology designed this policy to further
define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
Student Ratings of Instruction
Each faculty member except probationary faculty shall have a minimum of two courses/sections
rated by students annually, unless the Chair of the Department, or his designee, decides that
additional evaluations are required. Probationary faculty shall have every course rated.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may
elect to use either the Diagnostic Form or the On-line version.
Faculty must fill out the Faculty Information Form by the deadline each semester in order to
have each course's questions rated appropriately for that course. Other deadlines for
administration of the evaluation set by the University will be followed.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching
performance and effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member's scores shall at a
minimum fall into the "gray area" on the Short Report Form (which designates the middle 40%
of responses in the IDEA database, from 30% to 70%) using adjusted or unadjusted scores,
whichever are higher. This typically corresponds to an average score of 3.5 on a 5-point scale.
This goal may be adjusted as our experience with the IDEA instrument increases. The
department recognizes that it is important to evaluate teaching effectiveness on a multi-year basis
rather than focusing on a single course or a narrow time frame.
Peer Evaluations
Peer Evaluation Instrument
The peer evaluation instrument approved by the Department of Biology is in Appendix I. This
instrument will be discussed by the Chair with all department faculty members when they are
approved (individually or in groups), and with all new faculty before they are evaluated, so that
all faculty members are familiar with what will be evaluated.
Frequency. Typical frequencies are listed, below. The Chair of the Department, or his designee,
may decide that additional evaluations are required.
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and,
thereafter, at least one section every other year of employment regardless of a break in
service.
1. The Department Chair will prepare a rotation schedule including all tenured and
tenure-track faculty, and each semester, faculty members will be chosen from that
list to evaluate one part-time faculty member's course for all part-time faculty
peer evaluations
2. Formal evaluation committees will be formed when a Range Elevation is sought.
3. All submitted evaluations are considered when making contract decisions.
b. For full-time lecturers, two sections each semester for the first year and two sections
each academic year thereafter.
1. The Department Chair makes periodic evaluations of lecturer performance.
2. Formal evaluation committees are formed when a Range-Elevation is sought.
Range-elevation review committee members are expected to make at least two
peer evaluations of lecturer performance.
3. Tenure and tenure-track faculty members perform periodic evaluations when
asked to do so by the Lecturer or Department Chair.
4. All submitted evaluations are considered when making contract decisions.
c. Tenured and tenure-track faculty will be evaluated as indicated below on a rotating
basis such that during a five-year period the maximum number of different courses is
evaluated.
Peer Evaluations for Probationary Faculty:
1. The RTP Mentoring Committee members (3) are each expected to perform
evaluations for at least one class per semester. Therefore, ordinarily there are six
reviews per faculty per year but may be less depending upon teaching load and
WTU distribution.
2. As the RTP Committee making formal decisions consists of all tenured faculty in
the department, it is not uncommon for any number of the tenured faculty to
submit evaluations. There is no regularity to this latter type of evaluation.
3. All submitted evaluations are considered when making retention, tenure and
promotion decisions.
Peer Evaluations of Tenured Faculty:
1. Faculty members with a rank of less than Professor are reviewed periodically
during the years following tenure. The average in the early years following tenure
is one-two evaluations per year.
2. During the latter years before a promotional decision is sought, a review
committee chair is designated to encourage all faculty with the rank of Professor
to perform evaluations. The average in the latter years is three-six evaluations per
year.
3. All submitted evaluations are considered when making promotion decisions.
4. Faculty members with a rank of Professor are reviewed when the Chair of the
Department, or his designee, decides that additional evaluations are required.
2. Faculty will use the attached Departmentally approved form (see Appendix 1) to evaluate
Course Content, Instructional Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
3. The evaluator shall perform a face-to-face real time peer observation as part of the peer.
Overall
The Department of Biology will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328
when electing committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Information obtained from peer evaluations and/or student rating questionnaires shall be
confidential. Possession or use of this information shall be restricted to:
1. The instructor, who may at his/her discretion, make such information available to others.
2. Those charged with administering this policy.
3. Those with access to the Open Personnel File.
APPENDIX 1: Peer Evaluation Form
Department of Biology
Faculty evaluated:
Course:
Evaluator:
Faculty Rank:
Year/Term:
1)
Is the course content appropriate and current?
2)
Is the instructor following the principles of good instructional design (assessing where
students are, defining outcomes, utilizing strategies to get the students to those outcomes and
utilization of appropriate technology)? Give examples, if pertinent.
3)
Is the instruction being delivered in a way appropriate to the course (oral presentation skills,
written communication skills, informational technology, and ability to create an environment
conducive to student learning)? Please list any ideas for potential improvement.
4)
Is the instructor properly assessing the students' performance in the course (well-defined
learning outcomes and means to determine if the students are meeting the goals, timely and
meaningful feedback to students)?
Signature of Evaluator:
JP: 10/2/11